Community Policing as an Effective Tool for Police Departments - Essay Example

Community Policing as an Effective Tool of Police Departments Community police programs even as simple as the Neighborhood Watch programs that have been installed in numerous communities across the country have proven to be effective solutions to problems caused by social disorganization. This criminological theory explains the failures of a community’s schools, police and neighbors to collectively come together in an effort to solve its crime issues. Thus it is not surprising that the reverse, or active community involvement such as the formation of Neighborhood Watch or community police programs (NWP), is an essential element in the reduction of crime. Understanding basic human behavior, including social disorganization theory regarding criminal activity will demonstrate how the activation of community policing programs becomes an effective tool for local police departments. Humans have the propensity to alter their behavior, beliefs, morals and ethics based upon real or perceived societal pressures because of the fundamental and universal need for acceptance by social peers. The failure to comply with conventional ‘norms’ of society often results in serious consequences; the most disconcerting is the segregation from and vilification of a desired group. People will go as far as to alter their deepest belief system and innermost values to be accepted by their friends, neighbors, community and those considered to be superiors. A person may often comply when prompted to act in a certain way by another whether or not they believe it is the correct course to take because the outcome of non-compliance lead to undesirable social consequences. Obedience differs from compliance. A person will obey a directive from a person accepted as an authoritative figure because they do not believe that they have a choice whereas complying is more of a choice. Both of these factors come into play through community policing efforts. In 1951, Solomon Asch demonstrated conformity by demonstrating how people can be routinely influenced by others (Asch, 1951). In his study, Asch gathered a small group of people together to compare a line drawn on one piece of paper to three lines drawn on another, one of which was obviously the same size as the one on the first paper. He then asked the group to determine which of the three lines matched the one. All but one of the group members was collaborating with Asch unbeknownst to the one actual subject of the test who was always positioned to choose last. The collaborators would choose the wrong line so as to determine if the test subject would give in to social pressure and choose against their own perceptions. Seventy-six percent of the test subjects did just that (Asch, 1951). However, if just one other member of the group chose the obvious correct answer, 18 percent of the test subjects also chose what they knew to be correct as well (Asch, 1951). This experiment proved that the need to conform to others in society, even strangers, is very strong. Why would people conform in this rather benign situation rather than following their own mind’s eye? “When they were interviewed after the experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought peculiar” (Asch, 1951). In 1961, Stanley Milgram began his experiments which demonstrated the tendency for obedience, an experiment that is still today a subject of much discussion, debate and review. Milgram demonstrated how readily people will intentionally harm one another even though they had no personal or monetary cause to do so. Subjects of the experiment were told that they were participating in a study to determine if punishment affected the way people learn (Blass, 2004). Three people took part in the experiment. Two were actors, one playing the part of the person conducting the experiment who instructed but did not coerce the subjects to persist if they resisted. The second actor, the ‘learner,’ was asked questions by the test subject and then pretended to be in great pain when answering a question incorrectly. The subject carried out the punishment by engaging a button on a metal box which they were told was a mechanism that controlled voltage and was attached to the ‘learner’ (Blass, 2004). A switch on the box was labeled with the numbers 15 to 450 representing the amount of voltage in 15 volt increments. A label at the high end of the switch was marked with differing terms such as ‘severe shock.’ The subject asked the ‘learner’ questions and when the wrong answer was given, the subject was instructed to push the button giving the ‘learner’ a shock. In each instance in which a wrong answer was given throughout the test, the voltage was increased by 15 volts. Milgram demonstrated in these experiments that most people are readily obedient and will go against their own standards of moral behavior if the behavior is sanctioned by an authoritative figure or the society in general (Blass, 2004). Furthermore, the experiments proved that the conditions do not have to be at all extreme for people to naturally become obedient. Blind obedience to perceived authoritative figures is not a characteristic of merely the weak-minded or pathological persons but also of most “average” people when they are placed in a stressful situation such as the Milgram experiment and many others which followed it have shown. This experiment has been reproduced in countries worldwide with somewhat comparable results. It is a human trait to obey others perceived to possess authority and power. There are slight variations between cultures however. In cultures where powerful figures are considered more acceptable than others, the Chinese culture for example, that teaches the government should be served by the people, people are more likely to obey without question. In the Western tradition, though, where the opposite is true, the rate of obedience varies accordingly (Hofstede, 1980). If a person is of the majority opinion, they are likely to vocalize their views freely. A lack of criticism or challenge from others acts to strengthen that person’s opinion. However, if a person is not of the majority opinion, they will be concerned about being isolated socially and won’t vocalize their opinion as unreservedly, at least in public. As a result, minority opinions are infrequently shared in a social context and appear to be more of a minority that they actually are. “Social norms of the rejection of and intolerance to different ideas may affect not only the frequency of expression of certain ideas but also their salience among people’s thoughts and attitudes.” (Noelle-Neuman, 1986). Furthermore, the lack of demonstration regarding minority ideologies allows existing social standards to remain largely unchallenged. When individuals are faced with making an important decision, they frequently take the widely held social norms into consideration in addition to the other factors influencing the current situation. The term social disorganization defines a wide and indefinite range of societal issues. Generally, it refers to a noticeable decline of the behavioral standards because of a lack of authority, or social control, within a specific community (Shaw & McKay, 1942). In this environment, what is considered acceptable conduct is not a regular aspect of life as communal organizations such as close urban living conditions do not function as in other, more ‘normal’ communities. This type of situation is most apparent in larger cities that have larger proportions of poor, disenfranchised people but also occurs in pockets of almost all towns. Those cities that are close in proximity to metropolitan areas are more likely to experience the peripheral effects of social disorganization as well as those within their own borders than towns that are geographically isolated. Limited police departments, increasingly reduced in their effectiveness by rising populations and limited resources, must find another means of addressing the criminal element in society and reducing its affect on general social behavior. The most prominent and widely recognized theory regarding social disorganization is attributed to Shaw and McKay (1942) although their work has been studied extensively and has undergone a significant evolution since its publication. A case in point, Harvard professor Robert Sampson (1997) and his team supplemented the theory by adding ‘social capital’ and ‘collective efficacy’ to criminological terminology.  Social capital is the level of interdependence within a community and collective efficacy, in simpler terms, is a neighborhood’s capability of maintaining lawful conduct. A societal unit must exhibit an interaction between its authoritative institutions and also among its people, at least a moderate level of social capital, before it can expect any type of advancement in its collective efficacy. In criminology, the theory of routine activities is also frequently considered as a model for the contemporary social disorganization theory.  “Routine activities theory holds that in order to eliminate crime anyplace, you need to address three necessary conditions: pool of motivated offenders; suitable targets of opportunity; and ineffective guardianship” (Cohen & Felson, 1979).  Areas of social disorganization allow the opportunity for crime which is a motivating factor and presents suitable targets because of the lack of guardianship in the neighborhoods. A socially disorganized neighborhood does not have the ability to solve its own problems, its residents having little sense of community belonging. Community policing is a step towards this communal identity, an essential part of the healing of a socially disorganized area.  The reason many kids join gangs is to be involved with those in their neighborhood and to experience a sense of belonging. The need to feel part of a community is strong in most everyone but without programs such as community policing pulling together the community in a positive direction, the consequences of this need for belonging can only be negative. Another factor accentuating social disorganization is the turnover of people within a community. The mobilization of persons within an area, the frequency in which people move in and out of an area, leads to a detached feeling of community. There is no reason to invest themselves in their community as they and their neighbors will probably be leaving soon. An effective method of counteracting the problems induced by social disorganization is through programs, such as a community police program, to gather together the citizenry within a community, whether mobile in nature or not. Municipally backed programs which encourage its populace to stand together in a communal effort to slow down the crime rate have been shown to reduce the potential of violent acts especially among the youth demographic. Community police programs serve to deter crime as they offer at least a perception of greater protection within the immediate vicinity which helps build a sense security, the essence of a communal feeling of belonging, evokes a feeling of inclusion and partnership with the police and thus the beginnings of healing and a reversal of social disorganization (“School and Community”, 1999). Community police programs were founded on the concept that the monitoring of a community is best accomplished by the citizens of that community. The challenge for city leaders is structuring an effective mechanism by which to organize and empower persons in sections of the city without giving them the authority to act as vigilantes. Federal funds should be at least monitored, if not portioned out, by the city’s administration so as to minimize corruption within the program. Measures that attempt to ensure unity amongst the participants in a community police program will strengthen the unit as this program strengthen the bonds within the community. The programs that have failed were largely the ones that communicated only with itself with no governmental support or guidance. This goes against the very concept of social organization as a response to social disorganization and its associated crime problems. For a system designed to ultimately bring a community together, the entire community including city institutions must be involved. If this happens, the citizens of the community will be a safer and happier. References Asch, S.E. (1951). “Effects of Group Pressure Upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgment.” Groups, Leadership and Men. H. Guetzkow (Ed.). Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press. Blass, T. (2004). The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram. New York: Basic Books. Cohen, L. & Felson, M. (1979). “Social Change and Crime Rates.” American Sociological Review. Vol. 44, pp. 588-608. Hofstede, Geert. (1980). Culture’s Consequences: International Differences in Work-Related Values. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. O’Connor, Tom & Baker, Paula. (May 17, 2006). “Social Disorganization Theories of Crime.” Criminology. North Carolina Wesleyan College. Sampson, Robert; Raudenbusch S. & Earls F. (1997). “Neighborhoods and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy.” Science. Vol. 227: pp. 918-24. “School and Community Interventions to Prevent Serious and Violent Offending.” (September 1999). Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Retrieved July 30, 2008 from Shaw, C. & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areaas. Chicago: University Press. Read More